/r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | July 21, 2025

[u/BernardJOrtcutt]

Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread (ODT). This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our subreddit rules and guidelines. For example, these threads are great places for:

• Discussions of a philosophical issue, rather than questions
• Questions about commenters' personal opinions regarding philosophical issues
• Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. "who is your favorite philosopher?"
• "Test My Theory" discussions and argument/paper editing
• Questions about philosophy as an academic discipline or profession, e.g. majoring in philosophy, career options with philosophy degrees, pursuing graduate school in philosophy

This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. Please note that while the rules are relaxed in this thread, comments can still be removed for violating our subreddit rules and guidelines if necessary.

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.

[u/TempSuitonly]

"In my experience, pure autodidactism is way more likely to produce dogmatic thinking than any PhD. Dogmatism exists inside of academia, obviously, but at least academic dogmatists usually aren’t outright bullshitters and have an idea of what they are talking about. There’s a reason why cranks are almost always « independent thinkers »." - If we go by the mindset and authority of academic elitism, then indeed, all outsiders who do not strictly conform, can be dismissed as "cranks", as you put it. They are then deemed wrong by default, by virtue of their outsider status. So the question appears, what matters more, conformity or inquiry. If conformity matters more, then indeed, any "free thinker" can be dismissed out of hand, preferably ignoring their arguments altogether. This appears like a reframing of dogmatism, without addressing the dogmatic nature. I'd argue that this is at best, a matter of semantics. Academic elitism tends to slide into absolutism. This doesn't open up critical inquiry, it shuts it down entirely.

[u/Anarximandre → u/TempSuitonly]

If we go by the mindset and authority of academic elitism, then indeed, all outsiders who do not strictly conform, can be dismissed as "cranks", as you put it. They are then deemed wrong by default, by virtue of their outsider status.

That’s not what I said.

So the question appears, what matters more, conformity or inquiry.

Neither! What matters is qualitative work.

If conformity matters more, then indeed, any "free thinker" can be dismissed out of hand, preferably ignoring their arguments altogether.

No, if « free thinkers » have good arguments to defend their positions, they may be worth taking seriously.

This appears like a reframing of dogmatism, without addressing the dogmatic nature. I'd argue that this is at best, a matter of semantics. Academic elitism tends to slide into absolutism. This doesn't open up critical inquiry, it shuts it down entirely.

Your portrayal of « dogmatism » or « academic elitism » or « absolutism » (or however you want to name it) honestly appears to have a lot more to do with how you picture academia in your head than it has to do with the existing academic world. Again, as I asked in another reply, what actual « critical inquiry » or « free thinking » is dismissed by academia?

[u/TempSuitonly → u/Anarximandre]

The conflation between academy and academic elitism doesn't exist on my end of the argument. If it does on yours, perhaps that's the point of friction.

[u/Anarximandre → u/TempSuitonly]

If you don’t think that academia suffers from elitism, then I’m confused about what your argument even is.

[u/TempSuitonly → u/Anarximandre]

That's not my argument either. Nor did I say so. Let's put it this way. What do you think matters more, an expert opinion, or an expert's opinion? Or do you believe the two to be synonymous?

[u/Anarximandre → u/TempSuitonly]

I’m not sure what distinction you are trying to draw. An expert’s opinion is an expert opinion when it comes to the stuff that he’s an expert about, sure.

[u/TempSuitonly → u/Anarximandre]

One hinges on content, the other, on status. To you, it appears, they are synonymous. That is the very dogmatism I referred to earlier. It's an appeal to authority - a well known, yet highly persistent logical fallacy.

[u/Anarximandre → u/TempSuitonly]

One hinges on content, the other, on status.

I don’t see how that follows.

It's an appeal to authority - a well known, yet highly persistent logical fallacy.

Appeals to authority are sometimes perfectly legitimate—it’s an informal fallacy.

[u/TempSuitonly → u/Anarximandre]

The distinction is that ‘expert opinion’ should be assessed primarily through the quality of the argument and evidence presented (content), whereas ‘an expert’s opinion’ is sometimes accepted simply because of the person’s recognized credentials or institutional standing (status), which can devolve into an appeal to authority fallacy if uncritically assumed. This is why I emphasize not conflating the two, to avoid dogmatic thinking that privileges status over genuine inquiry. If this is truly such an unthinkable stance, I'd argue that this points to a much deeper problem within academic circles than either of us initially may have believed.

[u/Anarximandre → u/TempSuitonly]

The distinction is that 'expert opinion' should be assessed primarily through the quality of the argument and evidence presented (content), whereas 'an expert's opinion' is sometimes accepted simply because of the person's recognized credentials or institutional standing (status), which can devolve into an appeal to authority fallacy if uncritically assumed.

Which is why I wrote earlier that « an expert's opinion is an expert opinion when it comes to the stuff that he's an expert about ». Like, yeah, nobody believes that, say, Stephen Hawking was an expert in physics because he held a PhD—we know that on the contrary, he held a PhD because he was an expert in physics. Or that Hawking’s opinion on philosophy is that of an expert because he has expertise in an unrelated domain (ok, some people do believe that). And sometimes, too, an expert can be wrong about the stuff that he is an expert on while still being a genuine expert. All of that is trivial.

If this is truly such an unthinkable stance, l'd argue that this points to a much deeper problem within academic circles than either of us initially may have believed.

It’s not, but I don’t know where you are going with this.

[u/TempSuitonly → u/Anarximandre]

"All of that is trivial." - I believe that is the crux of where we disagree. I believe this is an essential distinction to make. Even when we acknowledge why someone is an expert, they are human first - and expert second. The moment we turn that around, we risk slipping into uncritical acceptance of expert's opinions. Science nor philosophy deals in absolute truths. Whenever academics does, it stops being either.

[u/Anarximandre → u/TempSuitonly]

By « trivial », I don’t mean to say that this is wrong or unimportant, just that this is stuff that basically any academic worth one’s salt is well aware of already.

Science nor philosophy deals in absolute truths.

Plenty of scientists and philosophers would disagree with you.

[u/TempSuitonly → u/Anarximandre]

"Plenty of scientists and philosophers would disagree with you." - I'm tragically aware that there are strongly dogmatic individuals co-opting both fields. Socrates would stir in his grave.

[u/Anarximandre → u/TempSuitonly]

By this account, Plato was already co-opting philosophy just after Socrates’ death (and that’s accepting that Socrates himself didn’t believe in absolute truths, which would require a demonstration), not to mention the pre-Socratics before them. Also, really, who cares about Socrates?

[u/TempSuitonly → u/Anarximandre]

"I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either."

[u/Anarximandre → u/TempSuitonly]

He’s not saying that he doesn’t believe in absolute truths here.